Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator
[2023] QIRC 276
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 276
- Add to List
Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 276
Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2023] QIRC 276
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Supercar Rides Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 276 |
PARTIES: | Supercar Rides Pty Ltd (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent) |
CASE NO: | WC/2022/138 |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 September 2023 |
HEARING DATES: | 26 September 2023 |
MEMBER: | O'Connor VP |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPEAL – WORKERS' COMPENSATION – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – where an application has been brought to dismiss proceeding – where there exists a history of non‑compliance and failure to comply with directions – where just and expeditious disposition required – whether discretion enlivened to dismiss proceeding |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), r 5, r 6, r 45 |
CASES: | House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Quaedvlieg and Ors v Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 180 QGIG 1209 Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor [2002] 1 Qd R 647 |
APPEARANCES: | No appearance for the Appellant. Ms C. Shedden for the Workers' Compensation Regulator. |
Reasons for Decision
- [1]The Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') filed an application in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') on 7 September 2023 to strike out appeal WC/2022/138. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of Ms Carolyn Shedden, Senior Appeals Officer, Workers' Compensation Regulator setting out a chronology of the matter and attaching supporting documentation.
- [2]In the application the Respondent states the Appellant has failed to respond to correspondence from the Commission and also from the Respondent. The Appellant's failure to attend the call over hearing on 26 July 2023 indicates they have no intention to comply with the Commission's orders and/or to prosecute their appeal. Therefore, the Respondent seeks the following order be made:
- that the appeal filed by Supercar Rides Pty Ltd (WC/2022/138) in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 23 August 2022 be dismissed pursuant to rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011; and
- that there be no order in respect of costs.
Background
- [3]On 23 August 2022 the Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the Industrial Registry. A Directions Order was issued by the Industrial Registry on 24 August 2022 for filing relevant documentation.
- [4]The Appellant emailed the Industrial Registry on 7 November 2022 seeking an extension of time to file and serve their Statement of Facts and Contentions. The Respondent did not oppose the extension, however sought a timeframe and raised the issue that the Appellant had not complied with direction number 3 to provide their list of documents.
- [5]Following further correspondence and non-compliance by the Appellant, the Industrial Registry issued Directions Order No 3 on 25 November 2022 vacating the previous order and advising the matter will be placed in abeyance until notified otherwise by the Appellant.
- [6]A call over hearing was listed on 26 July 2023 and the Appellant failed to comply with the notice of listing.
- [7]The Respondent emailed the Appellant on 14 July 2023 seeking their intentions for the call over hearing and the Appellant did not respond.
- [8]On 21 August 2023 the Respondent emailed the Appellant in relation to their non‑appearance on 26 July 2023 and non-response to the previous email of 14 July 2023. The Respondent requested the Appellant to advise their intentions in progressing their appeal by close of business Monday 28 August 2023 and placed them on notice that if no response was received, the Respondent will make an application to the Commission to have the appeal struck out. The Appellant did not respond.
The Rules
- [9]Rule 5 of Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) ('the Rules') provides that the Rules apply to a proceeding before the Court, the Commission, a Magistrate or the Registrar.
- [10]Rule 6 of the Rules sets out the purpose of the rules as follows:
The purpose of these rules is to provide for the just and expeditious disposition of the business of the court, the commission, a magistrate and the registrar at a minimum of expense.
- [11]Clearly r 6 recognises the obligation placed, in this instance, on the Commission and implicitly on the parties to ensure the expeditious disposition of matters in the Commission.
- [12]Rule 45 provides:
45 Failure to attend or to comply with directions order
- This rule applies if -
- a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar stating a time, date and place for a hearing or conference for the proceeding; and
- the party fails to attend the hearing or conference.
- This rule also applies if -
- a party to a proceeding receives notice of a directions order made by the court, commission or registrar; and
- the party fails to comply with the order.
- The court, commission or registrar may -
- dismiss the proceeding; or
- make a further directions order; or
- make another order dealing with the proceeding that the court, commission or registrar considers appropriate, including, for example, a final order; or
- make orders under paragraphs (b) and (c).
- [13]
Consideration
- [14]
There is now a consciousness of the need for some level of efficiency in the use of the courts as a public resource. That, of course, must not displace the need for reasonable access to the courts and the provision of justice according to law in each matter, but it highlights the fact that the former laissez faire attitude by courts towards the leisurely conduct of actions at the will of the parties has ended. At the same time the rules of court are not an end in themselves. They do not exist for the discipline of practitioners or clients, or for the protection of courts from inefficient litigants, but rather as a means of ensuring that issues will be defined in an orderly way and that parties have the opportunity of full preparation of their case before the trial commences. The rules also afford defendants the means of bringing to an end actions in which the other party will not abide by the rules.
- [15]Whilst Quinlan v Rothwell & Anor related to the application of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in respect of an application to dismiss for want of prosecution, in my respectful view, the reasoning of Thomas JA has equal application to the current proceedings.
- [16]The discretion to dismiss this proceeding has, in my view, been enlivened. Accordingly, having regard to the history of unjustified non-compliance with the directions' orders, the absence of any communication with the Appellant since 7 November 2022 and, in particular, their failure to attend the call-over on 26 July 2023 and the hearing on 26 September 2023 are all appropriate grounds to exercise the discretion to dismiss the proceeding.
- [17]Accordingly, I order that:
- Pursuant to rule 45(3) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), appeal WC/2022/138 is dismissed.
- There be no order as to costs.